Public Bill Committee

(Afternoon)

[Mr. David Amessin the Chair]

None

David Amess: At the end of the morning, when I was only with you in spirit, we had reached new clause 9, and Mr. Robertson was in the process of moving his new clause.

New Clause 9

Grandparents national insurance credit
(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 23A(3)(c) (Contributions credits for relevant parents and carers), after first in, insert unpaid care for 20 hours in that week or more of a grandchild under the age of 12 or of an ill, frail or disabled family member, friend or partner, or (d) otherwise in..(John Robertson.)

Brought up,read the First time, and motion made (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

John Robertson: This is the first time I have spoken under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I feel I should have something like in a Perry Mason court case, where one can ask the stenographer to repeat the last sentence the last person said. I was getting so enthusiastic about my speech that I forgot to mark exactly where I did finish. I know you have missed the whole thing, so perhaps I should start from the beginningand then again, perhaps I had better not. I suspect that people have heard it before.
But let me just recap what I was trying to say: Government wrong, me right would be a short summary. Grandparents are most important: as one myself, as I said earlier, I may have a vested interest, but I think that interest has certainly opened my eyes to something important. I was going to say that there is obviously a question of fairness and equality to be looked at.
When a person is caring for a child in a family instead of working, whether it is a parent or a grandparent, why should we discriminate in regard to their pension? I know that has been said, but it should be repeated: why do we discriminate against grandparents? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me in his reply. This new clause is not about paying someone for the care; after all, there is no gain for someone who is already receiving the full state pension.
The current situation means that, if a mother stays at home to care for a child, she will get a weekly credit toward her pension. But if she returns to work and her own mother provides the child care, the grandmother will get nothing. It is not clear to me why that should be the case, and I hope my right hon. Friend will explain. The mother in that scenario is in work, and will probably be paying tax and national insurance, and not claiming. Working parents also help to raise the familys income and tackle child poverty, one of the Governments fundamental goals.
It might be suggested that there is an element of double claim here. But grandparental child care means that the mother will not be claiming child care tax credit, because informal child care does not qualify. It seems as though we have got the incentives wrong.
The Pensions Act 2007 was groundbreaking, giving unpaid care the same status as paid work for the first time. That was particularly welcome to women, who bear the brunt of caring roles in our society. Only 35 per cent. of women currently retire with the full basic state pension. That is a shockingly low percentage, and I am glad to say that my Government and my party are trying to do their best to alleviate the problem. This is the kind of reform for which we sometimes do not receive the credit we deserve. I am now looking for my Government and my party to pass this new clause, in order to look after grandparents in the same way we look after everybody else.

Tony McNulty: It is a great pleasure to welcome you in the flesh as well as in the spirit, Mr. Amess, as I am sure you were with us this morning. As my hon. Friend has said, new clause 9 seeks to give contribution credits to help people caring for a grandchild under 12 to build up their state pension. It seeks also to give similar rights to people caring for 20 hours a week for a partner, relative or friend who is sick, frail or disabled, which is in fact already Government policy.
I would say to my hon. Friend in the nicest way possible that his new clause is deficient in a number of ways on both countsin terms of grandparents and carers of the disabled. Let me explain why and review them both in turns. As he said, a wide power exists in section 23A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That allows regulations to be made to define people engaged in caring with a view to awarding them credits. He also perfectly fairly said that regulations are currently being drafted under the provision, which will be laid before Parliament this year. We think those draft regulations will go further than his new clause does in terms of the part about caring for a sick or disabled person.
The regulations propose that contribution credits be awarded to someone caring for one or more persons for a total of 20 hours a week where each person is receiving one of a range of attendance-related benefits, or where the need for care is certified by a health or social care professional. They also propose cover for periods when care ceases for a time to allow for, among other things, holidays, respite care and sickness. In that respect, therefore, the new clause offers nothing more and will almost certainly restrict the conditions under which credits can be given to someone caring for a sick or disabled person.
I turn now to the proposals to award credits to grandparents caring for a grandchild under 12. We recognise the significant contributionas my hon. Friend has saidthat grandparents make to the community. However, they are not a homogeneous group. Many grandparents will be over state pension age and unable to benefit from credits; many of the younger grandparents will be combining caring with employment. We sincerely believe, like my hon. Friend, that the improvements we have already introduced will greatly increase the likelihood that those younger grandparents will qualify for a full basic state pension. In most cases they will have received home responsibilities protection when bringing up their own children, and that is to be converted to qualifying years of credit from 2010. That, together with the reduction in the number of qualifying years for a full basic state pension to 30, and the opportunity introduced in the most recent Pensions Act to buy voluntary contributions for past periods, will mean that very few grandparents will need additional credits. It is estimated that by 2025 almost half a million extra women over state pension age will be entitled to full basic state pension as a result of these reforms. I will, therefore, ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West to withdraw the clause.
I am, however, aware of the strength of opinion favouring some special recognition for grandparents who may, in some cases, give up their own prospects so that they can help their children. We are considering whether any further provision is needed for them and we will not limit that consideration to grandparents since similar care may equally be given by aunts, uncles and older siblings. We are satisfied, though, that if we do conclude that such provision is useful, there is already scope to provide that within secondary legislation. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend both on the forthcoming regulations and on any consultations we make in terms of a special recognition of grandparents and other groups. In that spirit I ask that he withdraw the new clause but am happy to continue working with him on the matter because I agree with the sentiment and thrust of his argument.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his gracious offer, which I am glad to take up. I will consider what he has said and in the same spirit of helpfulness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Claimants Charter and Employment Services Ombudsman
(1) Regulations under this section shall make provision for the extension of the powers of the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13) to administer disputes between claimants and bodies exercising powers under this Act, with particular reference to the Claimants Charter as under subsection (2) below.
(2) Regulations under this section shall make provision for a Claimants Charter to set out the rights and duties of Claimants under the provisions of this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section must, in particular, make provision for the following
(a) a copy of the Charter must be given to each claimant upon initial contact with providers exercising powers under this Act, together with information concerning the independent employment services ombudsman,
(b) claimants not in employment should not be forced to live below the poverty line which shall be defined in further Regulations under this section,
(c) claimants must be treated with dignity and respect by all providers exercising powers under this Act,
(d) claimants must not be subject to degrading or discriminatory treatment in all of their interactions with providers exercising powers under this Act,
(e) following initial contact with providers exercising powers under this Act claimants must be fully informed of, and provided with written confirmation of, the conditions of their benefit claim in addition to the consequences of failing to meet those conditions,
(f) provision of services by providers exercising powers under this Act must be timely and accurate,
(g) monitoring of claims by claimants under this Act shall be available via telephone services free of charge, if claimants have difficulties using telephone services they must be entitled to face-to-face services,
(h) claimants must have an opportunity to appeal against any decision under this Act leading to a reduction in benefits; clear advice to this end must be provided to the claimant before a sanction is applied,
(i) claimants are entitled to high-quality, individually tailored support and must be given access to services that will improve their ability to access decent work, including education, training, condition management and legal support in instances of employer discrimination,
(j) claimants must be made aware of, and advised on, all of the support for training, childcare and transport to interview costs they are entitled to by providers exercising powers under this Act,
(k) no claimant shall be required to participate in activity which would otherwise be a condition of benefit entitlement under this Act if appropriate childcare, or other reasonable support required to enable participation, is not available,
(l) no claimant shall be required to take part in an activity under this Act for which it would be reasonable to expect payment, unless they are in receipt of compensation for that activity in line with the National Minimum Wage, and
(m) claimants must be able to access free, independent and appropriate advice in relation to all aspects of the Act..(Paul Rowen.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you here in the flesh, Mr. Amess, as well as having you here in spirit this morning. Members will recall that on Second Reading, the Secretary of State, in answer to a point by another hon. Member, said that he would consider the idea of a claimant charter. He said:
I am aware that the idea has been suggested by Gingerbread, as well as by my hon. Friend, and it has a lot of promise. We want to consider how we can make sure that it is not restrictive and does not become a lawyers charter. As I will argue, we want to move towards a more flexible system based on personalised conditionality. If we are to do so, we need to look at how individuals can know that they will be treated fairly.[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009; c. 182.]
That last statement from the Secretary of State is pertinent to the new clause which has been prepared in conjunction with the Disability Alliance, which includes Gingerbread, Citizens Advice and Child Poverty Action Group. With the new clause, we seek to set out clearly the rights and obligations of the jobcentre and the various private providers and voluntary organisations that work under contract with Jobcentre Plus. It would also set out clearly the claimants rights and responsibilities.
I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform knows, from his time at the Home Office, that when people arrive in or leave the UK, they can see a clear charter on a board, at every Border and Immigration Agency entry point, setting out what the agency will and will not do, and how someone who is dissatisfied with the service that it has provided can deal with those regrets. Many hon. Members feel that, given the groundbreaking nature of the Bill, a similar charter should be produced for claimants. Our probing new clause, with which we hope to establish how far the Government are prepared to consider these ideas, sets out our belief that claimants should be handed a copy of the charter at the first stage, at their first interview, so that they know what is involved. It should not matter whether they are dealing with Jobcentre Plus or an independent agency.
The second provision concerns an issue that we have discussed this morninghow any sanctions that are imposed might impinge on a claimants ability to subsist. We think it important to set out that sanctions should not force a person into a situation in which they or their family are unable to subsist. If that happens, the sanction system is not working.
The third provision is about being treated with dignity and respect. That is the kind of treatment that one should expect from JCP officers anyway, but such expectations are clearly stated in most charters. Again, the next provision states that claimants should not be subject to degrading or discriminatory treatment. During these debates, we have discussed how people with disabilities, and people with drug and alcohol problems, might be treated. The Minister has assured us that agendas will be personalised and will take account of such issues. If so, there should be no problem with stating up front that that should happen.
The next provision is about what should happen after the initial meeting and after the contract has been agreed. Once it has been set out what must happen in the next few weeks, which of the three categories the claimant might be put into, and what action is required, there should be a clear, written statement setting out what will happen next. A big and common complaint of people dealing with Government Departments is that it takes an age for paperwork and agreements to be dealt with; I am sure that other hon. Members have experienced that. What we are saying is that once someone is registered and an agreement has been made, they should be provided with timely and accurate information and benefits, so that they do not end up in the situation that currently occurs with benefits and other payments such as housing benefit, in which applicants are forced to take out crisis loans because of delays. Clearly, the system is not working if that situation arises.
The next provision is about monitoring the process. I know that it is common practice for Government Departments and bodies such as Jobcentre Plus to monitor and record phone calls. From my experience of dealing with such issues, recording such calls has made it possible to resolve disputes, so we want that to happen. One slight change is something that I feel strongly aboutthe use of 0845 numbers. Currently, people who need to phone up to get information about their benefits spend disproportionate amounts of money getting through. The Government are reviewing the use of freefone and 0845 numbers, but the new clause states that such phone calls should be free, so that exercising a claim or dealing with a query does not cost the claimant any money.
The next provision is about an appeal against a decisionwhen the claimant feels that the sanction or the agreement is unfair. Members of the Disability Alliance want the establishment of a separate employment services ombudsman, but we think that that would be a duplication. The parliamentary ombudsmans remit has this year been extended to include health care issues, and when a claimant feels that they have been hard done by they should be able to go to the parliamentary ombudsman. She would be able to set out the situation clearly. The ombudsman would not deal with day-to-day issues; they would be dealt with through the internal appeals process.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with the next measure, which would ensure high-quality provision that was tailored to the individuals needs. During the passage of the Bill, we have raised many concerns about the ability of JCP to deliver that high-quality, personalised service, so the charter should say clearly, This is the level of service and this will take full account of your needs. If not, there is a process through which you can go in order to appeal.
The next provision in the charter would deal with the issues surrounding someone who was involved in the process. Will there be adequate child care? On the issue of including lone parents, we have voiced concerns to ensure that there will be adequate child care with which the parent is happy, not something that the Department imposes. If the parent has to travel to an office, reasonable transport costs should be reimbursed, and the measure sets out provisions for any interview costs that might be incurred.
The next provision deals with the situation when appropriate child care or support is not in place. If the claimant is a carer, they should not be forced into undertaking an activity that prevents them from discharging their wider activities.
The next point, which the TUC raised in its submission, refers to the situation in which work experience becomes work. No one on work experience should substitute for a real worker. If they do, they should receive the going wage for that job. That is a reasonable point to build into a claim.
Finally, the claimant should be able to get free, independent and appropriate advice. If a claimant were involved in drugs or had a mental health problem, organisations such as Mind would be appropriate for the provision of independent advice to the claimant. It often does so already, and the claimant should get advice on where to go.
The provisions of the charter are not fixed. I hope that the Minister will accept the way in which the new clause has been introduced. Given the Secretary of States willingness to consider a charter, I hope that if the Minister is not able to accept the measure, he will advise us how it will be put on the statute book, so that we have a clear claimants charter that sets out those rights and responsibilities by Report stage or by the time the Bill completes its stages in both Houses and the scheme is in operation.
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) rose

David Amess: I call James Purnell.

James Plaskitt: There is a slight difference between us, Mr. Amess. I have listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Rochdale, and it sounds as though he has presented us with something of a long wish list for a state of perfection right across the whole benefit system. What he has described is what many of us might, indeed, wish to see, but will he accept from me that in reality the benefit system works pretty well for the large majority of claimants who use it?
Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should always strive to improve the quality of service that we offer to claimants, I can see problems in the charter that he is proposingfor example, with workability, costs and the bureaucracy that would arise from several of his proposals. The main point to which I want to see if he will respond is, if we are going to seek to improve the benefit system by introducing a charter, does he accept that it should be half a charter? He seems to have written a charter that focuses on rights but says nothing at all about responsibilities. Although I wonder why he is proposing what is in the regulations list, if we look through his charter, it is not balanced by the responsibilities that exist in relation to claimants. If we are going to go down the road of having a charter, does he accept that both need to be set out?
I want to give some examples of where the hon. Gentleman would need to balance rights and responsibilities in the draft charter that he has presented. For example, why are paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3) not balanced by an obligation on the part of claimants not to be abusive to jobcentre staff? In relation to paragraph (e), in which he talks about information, why does he not balance that with an obligation on applicants to provide all the relevant information to someone who has tried to process their benefit at the time they are seeking to do so? Why does he not balance paragraph (f) with an obligation on claimants to provide timely information to support their application, or balance paragraph (i) with a commitment to take up all the appropriate training and work-related courses to which one is directed? Why not balance paragraph (n) by a reference to following through all the relevant advice that is given? My main point isI shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will respond to thisdoes he think that if there is to be a charter, it needs to cover both sides of the equation?

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to reply. I agree totally with the point he has made. I was careful in my remarks to say that the new clause was being proposed to stimulate discussion following the Secretary of States statement on Second Reading. I accept, as I said during my speech, that it is a matter of rights and responsibilities. I do not see my proposals as being written in tablets of stone. I hope that we can agree to take something away from the debate and come back at some future stage with a charter that has had input from a wide group of people and that does exactly what he is saying. Such a charter should set out not only the duties of the Department and providers, but the duty of the claimant. I have focused on the rights of the Department, the JCP and private providers because, in many respects, the Bill considerably changes the relationship between them.
The Bill sets out in great detail what the claimant can and cannot do. We have had much discussion about a personalised agenda, but the concerns we have raised throughout the progress of the Bill have been that the other side of the coin, of protecting the claimant to ensure that that level is delivered, is not set out in the Bill. I accept the hon. Gentlemans pointthis new clause is not prescriptive, it is meant to stimulate discussion; I merely wanted to right the balance because clear duties and responsibilities are set out in the Bill for claimants, but not so explicitly for what JCP and its partners have to deliver. I have tabled this new clause to stimulate debate about that.

John Robertson: I wish to make a couple of points. Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Rochdale, I have no problem with wish lists. Wish lists put forward ideas, and as such we hope that the people who put the law together will listen to them and put them on paper. That is how we make laws; they all come from somebodys wish list somewhere down the line.
I would like to emphasise the point about those 0845 numbers. As somebody who has worked in the communications business all his life and as chair of the all-party communications group since 2002, I have come across many cases of people who have been ripped off by those numbers. It is important that the Minister allays my fears on this. It is a disgrace that any Government body would use 0845 numbers, particularly when calls from mobiles cost a lot more. The people we try to protect the most are the poor, who are the most inclined to have top-up mobiles. It therefore costs even more for them to phone those telephone numbers. I would look at that.
I would also be interested in using an ombudsman. I have some sympathy with the concept, which is a tried and tested structure to ensure that best practice is followed, empowering the people who are best placed to know how these services are used. The services that will be provided to empower people will come from various bodies. Surely, then, an ombudsman would be quite useful.

Tony McNulty: Like the Secretary of StateMr. Purnell, not Mr. PlaskittI have some sympathy with the notion of a customers charter or a claimants charter; whatever you wish to call it, I think it makes sense. I take issue with the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale raised about the lack of equivalent rights and responsibilities in the Bill for Jobcentre Plus. To be straight with the hon. Gentleman, that is a fatuous pointJobcentre Plus has those rights and responsibilities as an organisation all the time. The way in which Jobcentre Plus should treat peoplewith dignity and other elements that people have suggestedhas not changed because the focus of the policy has changed. People have an absolute right to expect that level of behaviour, respect and dignity from Jobcentre Plus, notwithstanding what is in this or any other Bill. We do not have to have a whole telephone book of what is expected of Jobcentre Plus because it should be expected in all circumstances anyway. I think that there are sufficient redress and appeal provisions in the Bill and in the wider context of how Jobcentre Plus conducts its business to resist the notion of an ombudsman being involved.
Hon. Members will know and understand that an ombudsman is not a dispute resolution process. The ombudsman role has always been to find either maladministration or that due process has been followed in any given circumstance. That is constantly a disappointment sometimesif you can be constant sometimesto my constituents when they go to the ombudsman because part of the brand is precisely that it is a dispute resolution process. It is not. You will have seen the responses from the ombudsmen and they are often detailed, tortuous, but very accurate about processes and whether due process was followed by a range of authorities. In order to enable them to slip into a whole array of areas involving individualised disputes and to seek to resolve those disputes, we would need to go back to the root legislation and change the whole focus and statutory footing of the ombudsman. I do not think that that is either appropriate or desirable, given that the redress of grievances is already suitably accounted for in the Bill and the way that Jobcentre Plus operates.
We have this tension. Our end game, with this Bill and everything else that we do, is to introduce as personalised and as supportive a provision for each individual as we possibly cannot just for those involved in welfare reform and the longer-term unemployed, towards whom the Bill is geared, but for all customers, all individuals, who present themselves to Jobcentre Plus.
The Committee will understand straight away how introducing the flexibility to afford Jobcentre Plus such personalisation would look strange next to a statutory and rather rigidly drawn charter of rights and responsibilities for each and every customerthere would be tension. I should resist a statutory provision. The new clause is unclear about whether, just because it is in the Bill, a claimants charter established through regulations would be advisory, statutory or somewhere in between. We have had seminarswe have more to comewith Disability Alliance and others to which the hon. Gentleman referred to look at how we can ensure that, whether this is called a claimants charter, a customers charter or whatever, people are absolutely clear about what they can expect from Jobcentre Plus. I am entirely with him about what people can expect from each programme and, more generally, from Jobcentre Plus, but I include the caveat that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington suggested about the accompanying responsibilities that pertain.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Rochdale prayed in aid my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his quotation about not being restrictive and not coming up with a lawyers charter, because the more I look at the terms of the hon. Gentlemans new clause, the more they seem restrictive and, secondly, a lawyers charter. I do not doubt the good intent, but some provisions are narrowly drawn, while others are broadly drawn. We should not dwell on them unnecessarily, but proposed new paragraph (m) states that
claimants must be able to access free, independent and appropriate advice in relation to all aspects of the Act.
That is a fine aspiration, but why on earth should someone who has concerns about birth registration be entitled to access advice on every other aspect of the Bill? Indeed, vice versa, someone who wanted to be clear about the automaticity of the pension credit pilot would, according to the proposal, have free licence to get as much information as they needed for any aspect of the Bill, even if it had nothing to do with them.
The hon. Gentleman cited the TUC in relation to one provision, yet he made no definition of reasonable in the provision involving
activity under this Act for which it would be reasonable to expect payment.
Given that there are a few shyster lawyers around, I am afraid that the word reasonable could blow a big hole in work trials, Access to Work, work experience and all the things that, by common consent, actually help claimants to stay very proximate to the labour market or to get a job. The provision would do the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West made about 0845 numbers, and I believe in the review. I am toldhe can tell me later from his telecommunications and telephony experiencethat the last nut to crack is 0845 numbers called from mobiles, rather than landlines, and that, with existing technology, one can either continue to offer that service or notthere is no third technological option whereby one can offer the service for free. However, we are exploring the issue, because I agree with the premise of the charter and my hon. Friends suggestion that, if people need access to information by phonemobile or otherwisefrom Jobcentre Plus, it should be free. Some customers have said that for routine, snappy information, such as the time of interview and so on, they would far rather receive a quick text. That makes perfect sense, but, by a literal interpretation of the charter, that could not happen, because it says that if they cannot obtain the service by telephone, with all that that implies about telephony being vocal, they can demand a face-to-face service. However, a little text would do, so we cannot draw the provision too narrowly.
I am absolutely with the hon. Gentleman in spirit, however, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, is too. It is absolutely right that we should put outfar more readily than we have, because it is out there alreadyan overarching charter that states what customers or claimants, or whatever we want to call them, can and should expect in terms of behaviour, provision and service from Jobcentre Plus. Alongside it, there should be either programme-specific or more general approachesprobably bothcovering responsibilities for claimants or customers. That is the way forward that we are trying to follow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington makes very clear, that includes saying, You will not being abusive or violent to Jobcentre Plus staff, with all that that entails.
Although we are all broadly sympathetic, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause. I know that the team has been contacted by the Disability Alliance, which was slightly concerned that the new clause would put more into legislation than the organisation had intended. It was worried that the new clause, if accepted, would push the Department away from its positive sentiment regarding of a charter.
As I say, I will furnish Committee with details. There is a forthcoming stakeholder seminarGod knows what we called these people before they became stakeholders; an awful word. It is a people seminar to discuss what should go in the overarching customers charter or citizens chartergood Lord, not John Majors citizens charter! We are very much with the hon. Gentleman in spirit, but I ask that the proposal is not pursued in such a fashion.

Paul Rowen: As I said, the purpose of the new clause was to stimulate discussion. I am particularly grateful for the Ministers remarks and sentiments about 0845 numbers, because that is something that I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West also feels strongly about. I look forward to the Departments continuing work to establish rights and responsibilities through a charter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Passporting of Jobseekers Allowance
(1) The Jobseekers Act 1995 (c.18) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 27 insert
27A Passporting of Jobseekers Allowance
(1) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with allowing Jobseekers Allowance to be passported to employers of individuals who have been on Jobseekers Allowance for at least 18 months prior to their employment.
(2) Claimants to whom these regulations apply must be in receipt of the national minimum wage.
(3) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision for contracts of public works whereby employers will receive claimants passported benefits should they take into employment under such schemes claimants that have been in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance for at least 18 months.
(4) The award of public works contracts may be rendered conditional upon a minimum percentage of Jobseekers Allowance claimants being taken on by the employer concerned.
(5) Regulations may further make provision for Jobseekers Allowance to be passported to employers planning to make skilled or semi-skilled workers redundant.
(6) Regulations under this section may only apply to employees who would be entitled to Jobseekers Allowance if no longer in employment.
(7) The passported benefits must be used to either
(a) retrain the worker concerned, or
(b) permit retraining and employment as part of a reskilling package agreed between the employer and employee...(Paul Rowen.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, I shall not press the new clause to a Division, but I think that it is important, given that we have spent most of our time in Committee dealing with sanctions, that we deal with other aspects of employment that ought to be considered in the current climate. I understand what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading: the recession and the credit crunch are not reasons for not pressing ahead with reforms. Nevertheless, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I certainly feel that it is important that it is demonstrated to people, particularly those many thousands of people who have recently lost their jobs, that strategies can be adopted to improve employment.
If I may again use an international example, given that the Government have been very good at citing international examples that fit their agenda, there are four areas in the Wisconsin programme that operates in the US that deal with unemployed people. The first one is what is in the Bill: work for your benefit. Another is community service jobs, and a further one is transitions for people who need specialist help and support.
What is also included in that programme, but is missing in this Bill, is a system under which the state subsidises employers to take people into employment in what are called trial jobs. It is vital that things are done to get people back into work. Yes, we have considered measures to encourage people to go into work, but employers also need encouragement. I know that there has been experimentation through the city strategy pathfinders and the employment and skills partnerships. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will remember last Mays debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), about this issue and the greater freedoms of the partnerships.
I am seeking two major changes, although the first relates to a power that already exists. Local authorities can, when setting contracts, require as part of the contract that the person who wins it takes somebody off the unemployment register. In my authority of Rochdale, we set up a joint partnership board with a couple of employers. A few weeks ago, they took on their 300th employee who had come off the unemployment list. Those individuals include 15 people who were made redundant as a result of the closure of Woolworths.
Although that power exists, the new clause addresses something that does not and accepts that someone who is unemployed might need to be retrained if they are to undertake a job that they may be offered. A few years ago, when my local authority was renewing all the council houses, people were taken off the unemployment register. If someone is employed to become, eventually, a qualified bricklayer, electrician, plumber or roofer, there is no way that it can be argued that that particular person will be able to do, from day one, 100 per cent. of what can be done by a qualified person with several years experience. The ability to passport benefits would represent a payment to the employer. There would be a recognition that it was a training allowance for an employer taking someone off the unemployment register.
I have spoken to employers in my town who would be willing to take this on board. Indeed, Camden borough council operated a similar scheme under a contract with a company. We think that such a proposal is a good way of encouraging both employers and unemployed people. It tells unemployed people that they can learn on the job and that the benefits that they would have received if they were unemployed would be passported to the employer as a training allowance. A person could thus be trained in that particular trade.
In the next five years, there will be something like £1.5 billion of public and private expenditure in my local authority, for example through Building Schools for the Future. The jobs will be not only in construction, as that contract is over 20 years and involves the provision of such services as IT and cleaning. There is value in putting something in the contracts to say that it is a requirement that somebody is taken off the unemployment register, but that recognises that that person may not be suitably qualified for a limited period.I emphasise that it is not the intention that the benefits would be passported indefinitely.The new clause deliberately states that regulations will be laid, and there will have to be tight conditions to ensure that the scheme is not being used by an employer as a means of getting money off the state without delivering.
The second part of the proposal deals with something about which there are particular concerns: many industries are having to offload jobs because of the recession, which means that we will lose important skills and abilities. That problem has been raised regarding industries such as the motor trade and the aerospace industry, as well as other areas in which there are highly specialised people who taken many years to train. Employers are having to make certain people redundant because of a downturn in trade, such as someone who visited my surgery a couple of weeks ago and is making 13 of 88 employees redundant. I want to probe whether the Government are willing to consider this situation.
It could be shownit would have to be demonstrated by the employerthat an employee should undergo a period of further retraining. It might well be that although a person was in the plant for five days a week, they could spend three days actually working and two days enhancing their skills and developing new ones so that when the upturn comes, they will be appropriately skilled up to take advantage of that.A scheme to allow that would be advantageous to the company, because there would be no way that it could afford to provide such training in the current climate. The new clause recognises that and looks to countries such as Germany, where such an approach is adopted. We could tell employers that we would do something to help them to keep people in employment if they could demonstrate that they were undertaking a retraining process instead of making those people redundant.
Such an approach would have a double benefit: it would cost the state no more than if those people were unemployed, and those people would still be in work and drawing a wage for the remaining part of the week, and so would be paying taxes on those wages. In the current circumstances, that would be a win-win-win situation. There would be a win for the employee, because they would not be unemployed and their skills would be enhanced, and there would be a win for the company, because it would be allowed to undertake reskilling that it would not otherwise be able to afford in the current climate. Additionally, there would be a win for the country, because instead of losing vital skills in some sectors, we would be guaranteeing that we would still have engineers and qualified people in the future, because if those people went abroad, or we otherwise lost them, we would be in dire straits.
I reiterate that I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I merely wanted to put on record that the Liberal Democrats were serious about dealing not only with work for your benefit, but about protecting employment and ensuring that companies and employees are able to ride out the recession.

Tony McNulty: I appreciate the spirit of the new clause. If I were being churlish, I could rip virtually every provision apart, because it is wanting in many ways, but given the spirit in which it was tabled, I will not do so.
There are strong arguments for wage subsidyindeed, we have had it in the new deal for the past 10 years. However, I am troubled by the fact that the new clause would kick in only after 18 months of longer term unemployment. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in our last series of announcements, we announced the introduction of a package, from April, that will include a £2,500 mixture of employer subsidy and training for companies that take on someone who has been unemployed for six months. Why the delay? It is precisely because of some of the problems with the new clause, such as resisting duplication and dead-weight costs. That is a horrible phrase, but we want to resist those costs. We also want to avoid the perverse notion, which is problematic in any subsidy system, that people can sack a worker to take on someone else.
The issue involves all sorts of details and complexities, but the notion that we should not deal with it at all is wrong. We can and do, as I have said, have a more focused use of Train to Gainthrough the new deal, the new package that we are introducing in April, and our work with colleagues in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skillsto achieve some of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, such as keeping people in work, including in skilled jobs, and having additional training facilities. In motor car plants, for example, where the work force are on short time, Train to Gain has gone in to see what it can do to help with skills and training, and to preserve the skills base. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue, because we do not want to come out of this recession having to look for the very skills base that were so dissipated in the past two recessions, and finding that those people simply were not around, leaving us having to skill people up again. That would not be appropriate.
I agree with the thrust and sentiment of what the hon. Gentleman said, but we have to be clear that subsidies are short termthe new clause is very open-endedand, secondly, that they are precisely focused on the longer term unemployed, potentially through particular skills bases.
I will be candid and say that there is still a huge debate across Government about whether we should introduce blanket wage subsidy schemes in areas such as the motor trade. We think that there is a great deal of job substitution, duplication and other things going on in some of the European modelsin Germanys and Frances, in particular. If we were to go down that road, we would work much more around retention schemes that focus on training and skills interventions to skill up the work force while they are still in place.
I appreciate that Wisconsin is in the USthat is a perfectly fair pointbut, although I am au fait and happy with the notion that we should not take job subsidies off the table as an element in our arsenal to equip us for responding to the downturn, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested, including holding on to the skills base, I believe, on balance, that the new clause should be resisted, albeit for reasons that I have resisted giving because of the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman opened the debate. However, I do not doubt that we will regularly return to this issue if the downturn endures.
If the hon. Gentleman has not done so already, I commend him to look in detail at the golden hellos and all the other bits in the package that we are introducing in April for the six-months unemployed. They will help and, I hope, obviate the need for a subsequent package for those at 18 months, as is suggested in the new clause, which I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

Paul Rowen: I am happy to withdraw the new clause because, as I said, its purpose was to stimulate discussion. I was interested by the Ministers comment about six months, because, at present, no advice is given until at least 12 months. I am interested in how six months will fit in with current departmental policies. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.
With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, I shall try to wind things up. I thank your good selfin body and in spiritfor your excellent chairmanship, and ask you to convey our thanks in the same terms to Mr. Hood. You both used a light touch and were good humoured, as Chairmen should be, for which we have been grateful. There was, from both of you, that gentle menace that suggested that, were we to step out of line, you would pull out the full panoply of Chairmens powers, but of course we did not step out of line. I was pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and that of Mr. Hood.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Forest of Dean and for Hertsmere, not simply for their presencehow would we have coped without them?but, equally, for dealing with our business in a focused, professional manner that afforded the Committee a good deal of sharp debate about important issues. Our proceedings have been relatively free of partisanship and carried out in good humour and good spirit.
It would be remiss not to thank the hon. Members for Henley and for Billericay and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden for saying as little as possible and not getting in the way of our deliberationsI mean that most sincerely. The hon. Member for Billericay, of course, is a Whip, so we would expect him to say very little, but it would have been rather nice if he had popped in every now and then. However, he is in the room now, for which I am grateful. We welcome ghosts, whichever side of the Committee they are on.
I am happy to put on record that I am enormously indebted to the Under-Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley and for Chatham and Aylesford, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for their contributions. Although the Committee was top-heavy with MinistersI am not referring to my own spherical statusI am sure that hon. Members will agree that all Ministers made a significant contribution and that ministerial inputs were apportioned appropriately, if that is the correct phrase. I am grateful to my colleagues for the spirit and manner in which they contributed to the good order throughout the sittings.
I am enormously indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North for whipping lightly, but with gentle menace when required. I am equally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire. One of the meetings coming out of our deliberations is a discussion with the repetitive strain injury group to talk about the serious matter of RSI. Hopefully, my hon. Friend has not got that from throwing the advice and inspiration that we get from officials. I thank those officials for their endeavours, along with the Doorkeepers and the policeI do not think that we troubled them from their slumber too much having had only about two Divisions.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley, for Warwick and Leamington and for Glasgow, North-West on their significant and positive contributions, which guided the ministerial team and the Committee. I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West, who tabled some challenging amendmentswe will come back with at least two or three in some form. He, too, is a brooding presence with some gentle menacehon. Members might see a theme emerging in my thanks.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale for his contributions to our deliberations, many of which were put forward productively, although perhaps he started off a bit slowly. He has given me a brand new definition of a probing amendment: one where the clause is wrong, the amendment is wrong and the wrong thing entirely is talked about. If one is told so in no uncertain terms by the Minister, it becomes a probing amendment.
I was a little disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, East, whose rants were rather partisan. His new clauses were fatuous and vacuous, as would be expected from the Scottish National party. I am disappointed because he comes from one of the poorest communities in the country. One would have thought that the welfare reform agenda would be right up the street of the people of Glasgow. Happily for us, Glasgow has been more than adequately represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
This Bill covers important subjects that will matter to our communities and individuals up and down the country. I commend it to the Committee, and I seriously commend the Committee for its deliberations. Even though not many amendments, if any, were endorsed, we will reflect on the Committee proceedings. The Bill will be served well by the contributions of most Committee members.

James Clappison: I join the Minister in many, although not all, of his sentiments. I certainly agree with all the sentiments that he expressed to the Chairmen of the Committee. We are extremely grateful to you, Mr. Amess, and to your colleague, Mr. Hood, for the manner in which the Committee has been chaired, both in our deliberative sittings and evidence sessions. As the Minister rightly said, the Committee has been conducted in a good humoured and appropriate manner due to the skilled chairmanship of you and your colleague. I join the Minister in the thanks that he extended to everybody else who helped the Committee to perform in an expeditious way, including the Clerk, the Hansard writers, the Doorkeepers and the police officers.
I am very grateful to colleagues in my party. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean for his hard work, his telling analysis of the Bill and his excellent contributions. I am grateful to our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, for the extremely efficient role that he has played. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden for bringing their wisdom to bear on these proceedings.
Since we are being consensual, I reciprocate the spirit of the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform by congratulating him and his ministerial team. I also congratulate Labour Back Benchers on their contributions, as well as the hon. Member for Rochdale, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, East, who speaks for the Scottish NationalistsI want to be all-inclusive in this atmosphere. If there was an element of tenderness at the beginning of the Ministers contribution a moment ago, I would like to continue with that, although perhaps not all the remarks at the end of his contribution were made in that respect.
I certainly think that the Committee has been conducted appropriately, and we are pleased to have had the opportunity to examine the Bill and to do justice to the process of parliamentary scrutiny, which is our duty. We feel that we have done that fully. As the Minister rightly said, the subject matter of the Bill is important, particularly at present. We have been conscious throughout our proceedings of what is unfolding in the country at large. As this part of the Bills passage reaches its conclusion, we look forward to further analysis and scrutiny.

Paul Rowen: I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister and the hon. Member for Hertsmere. I have certainly enjoyed your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and that of your co-Chairman. You have been fair and reasonable about the way in which the business of the Committee has been conducted. I also express my thanks to the Committee Clerk, the Doorkeepers, those doing shorthand and all Members who have contributed.
This has probably been the most top-heavy Bill Committee that I have served on in terms of Ministers and ex-MinistersI am not including weight. When the debate moves to the Floor of the House, it will certainly be interesting, because I do not think that it will be as consensual, and I will not feel that I am such a lone voice when raising concerns. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, East, who represents the Scottish National party. This is his first Public Bill Committee, and I think that he has done extremely well in the circumstances, notwithstanding the Ministers comments.

John Mason: I think that I said at the beginning of our proceedings that this is the first time that I have served on a Public Bill Committee, so this has been very much a learning experience. I am sure that I have learned how to do something from every Member herefrom one or two I have learned how not to do things. I suppose that I am a little disappointed that Ministers did not take on at least one amendment, but I have had a good experience, and I appreciate all the help from staff and others.

David Amess: May I thank colleagues for their kind and generous remarks? Mr. Hood and I would like to thank colleagues for making this such an easy Bill to chair. The reason why it was so easy was that, at all times, hon. Members kept in good order and the debate was conducted in good spirit and with great humourmany thanks. I thank the Clerk for his expert advice, which the Committee has appreciated at all times, and the rest of the staff of the Commons for the way in which they have served the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose.